Thursday 30 July 1663

Up and to the office to get business ready for our sitting, this being the first day of altering it from afternoon during the Parliament sitting to the fore-noon again.

By and by Mr. Coventry only came (Sir John Minnes and Sir William Batten being gone this morning to Portsmouth to pay some ships and the yard there), and after doing a little business he and I down to Woolwich, and there up and down the yard, and by and by came Sir G. Carteret and we all looked into matters, and then by water back to Deptford, where we dined with him at his house, a very good dinner and mightily tempted with wines of all sorts and brave French Syder, but I drunk none.

But that which is a great wonder I find his little daughter Betty, that was in hanging sleeves but a month or two ago, and is a very little young child; married, and to whom, but to young Scott, son to Madam Catharine Scott, that was so long in law, and at whose triall I was with her husband; he pleading that it was unlawfully got and would not own it, she, it seems, being brought to bed of it, if not got by somebody else at Oxford, but it seems a little before his death he did own the child, and hath left him his estate, not long since. So Sir G. Carteret hath struck up of a sudden a match with him for his little daughter. He hath about 2000l. per annum; and it seems Sir G. Carteret hath by this means over-reached Sir H. Bennet, who did endeavour to get this gentleman for a sister of his, but Sir G. Carteret I say has over-reached him.

By this means Sir G. Carteret hath married two daughters this year both very well.

After dinner into Deptford yard, but our bellies being full we could do no great business, and so parted, and Mr. Coventry and I to White Hall by water, where we also parted, and I to several places about business, and so calling for my five books of the Variorum print bound according to my common binding instead of the other which is more gaudy I went home.

The town talk this day is of nothing but the great foot-race run this day on Banstead Downes, between Lee, the Duke of Richmond’s footman, and a tyler, a famous runner. And Lee hath beat him; though the King and Duke of York and all men almost did bet three or four to one upon the tyler’s head.

25
Annotations

"I find his little daughter Betty, that was in hanging sleeves but a month or two ago, and is a very little young child; married"

John Evelyn mentiones this "marriage" in his diary on the 19th -- so it must have been hot news. I wonder why it took Sam so long to find out: have his gossip sources dried up? I seem to remember that he was much more up to date in these matters a year or so ago.

Evelyn's diary:"19 ... This evening came Mrs. Bennet (sister to Mr. Secretary) to visite us: we all sup’d at Sir Geo: Carterets Tressurer of the navy, who had now maried his daughter Caroline to Sir Tho: Scot of Scots hall: This Gent: thought to be begotten by Prince Rupert."

Tudor (Royalist?) elegance -"Elizabeth I, 1592, wears a dark red gown (the fabric is just visible at the waist under her arms) with hanging sleeves lined in white satin to match her bodice, undersleeves, and petticoat, which is pinned to a cartwheel farthingale. She carries leather gloves and an early folding fan." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethdit...

hence -

From: Frances Brooke, The History of Emily Montague (London, England: Dodsley, 1769)Letter IV To John Temple, Esq.; Pall Mall.Quebec, July 1."’Tis very true, Jack; I have no relish for the Misses for putng girls in hanging sleeves, who feel no passion but vanity, and, without any distinguishing taste, are dying for the first man who tells them they are handsome. Take your boarding school girls; but give me a woman; one, in short, who has a soul; not a cold inanimate form, insensible to the lively impressions of real love, and unfeeling as the wax baby she has just thrown away.[...]." http://www.uwo.ca/english/canadianpoetry/eng%20...

------Were upper-crust girls put in hanging sleeves as a sign of premature adulthood - to "overreach" - to immobilize them, or...? Any guesses?If I have the style correct, methinks 'twas strange....

As this is the first mention of the Variorum, we don't know what it's all the variants of (obviously not Shakespeare, on several counts, which would be the likely assumption today among the bookish). What says L&M?

Sam's reference here seems to imply that these were a type of garment worn by very small children. Having looked at the portrait provided by TerryF (thanks), I can see, from a mother's point of view, they would be very useful to catch hold of for control purposes! Or does he mean that the family decided she was grown-up, marriageable and they signified this by putting her in a showy, adult garment? Poor little thing. Just hope the husband was good to her - her wishes seem to matter not a whit. I think the age of consent then was 13 (raised to 16 at end of Victorian period). I think most countries have it as 16 nowadays, though it is 9 in Iran.

RE: 'sitting' [we will confer Conferre, to bear together ] explained by Sam 'imself "... be Up and to the office to get business ready for our sitting, this being the first day of altering it from afternoon during the Parliament sitting to the fore-noon again...."

Walton's Pollyglot was my first thought on reading the entry: the biblical text does come complete in 5 vols., with the sixth being the various appendices etc.

However, Pepys' set is complete in the six. Having checked descriptions of 15 copies all were bound in calf; Evelyn's copy was so bound for example. The red morocco binding of Pepys' copy of Walton is then significantly more gaudy than the usual for this text. The volumes of Walton are folio, and measure typically about 18 x 11 in., and would weigh about 20/25 lbs. each. I can not see how Pepys, or Pepys and boy, could carry all five volumes for any distance; the physical effort required would be memorable, perhaps "the greatest in my life."

I ran also a quick check on works published in all European languages from 1550 to 1663 which incorporated Variorum, or a variant, in the title, thinking that there might be some compilation of classical texts, or a dictionary or, perhaps, of maritime laws and customs. Alas, there is absolutely no printed work of any kind issued in five volumes that I can locate in such a quick and dirty manner.

The usage "Variorum print" strikes me as different from the way Pepys in prior entries has described other books -- has Language Hat any suggestions of other alleys and cul-de-sacs I might pursue.

It is the oldest contest that took place in Olympia. Until the 13th Olympiad (728 B.C.) when the games lasted for only one day, it was the only event at the sanctuary. The athletes were running nude, in an area whose length was determined at 600 feet (192.27m), that is one Stade . It was this distance that gave its name to the area used for the performance of the event. These areas, the stadiums, were situated on hillsides or in small valleys, thus enabling the spectators to follow the events. Later and as the crowd of spectators grew, artificial slopes were built and the spectators sat on the ground.

Sir John Reresby described how Charles II spent his final years living in Newmarket.

The King... mixed himself amongst the crowd, allowed every man to speak to him as he pleased, went hawking in the mornings, to cock-fights or foot races in the afternoons (if there were no horse races), and to plays in the evenings.

Meanwhile in March 1661 in Scotland…

As a variety upon horse-racing, Mercurius Caledonius announced a foot-race to be run by twelve brewster wives, all of them in a condition which makes violent exertion unsuitable to the female frame, ‘from the Thicket Burn [probably Figgat Bun] to the top of Arthur’s Seat, for a groaning cheese of one hundred pound weight, and a budgell of Dunkeld aqnavitae and rumpkin of Brunswick Mum for the second, set down by the Dutch Midwife The next day, sixteen flsh-wives to trot from Musselburgh to the Canon-cross for twelve pair of lamb’s harrigals.’

“By this means Sir G. Carteret hath married two daughters this year both very well”

Information from “All For the King” by Balleine (Carteret’s bio), pages 138-140.

“Parent’s in Careret’s position in those days were all agog to marry their daughters ‘well’. This meant a young man with a title, a manor, a deer-park and at least £2000 a year. Anne [eldest] was the first of the girls to find a husband. Evelyn notes in his Diary; '1662, November 4. I was invited to the wedding of the daughter of Sir George Carteret, married to Nicholas Stanning, Knight of the Bath, by the Bishop of London in the Savoy Chapel, after which was an extraordinary feast.’ Stannings’ father had been one of the Royalist leaders in the west in the early days of the War, and had worked in close touch with Sir George, distributing the munitions as fast as they arrived in St. Malo. The son had been created a Baronet in 1663, and later made Governor of Plymouth, and Anne became mistress of the fine estate at Marystowne in Devon.” [note says she must have died prior to 1670, when Sir Nicolas married again].“Eight months later it was the turn of Carolina. The Archbishops’s license gave permission to “Thomas Scott, bachelor, aet 20, to marry Carolina de Carteret, aet 15 [note this is an error, she was 14 at this time], at the French Church in the Savoy.’ The fact that these wedding both took place in the French Huguenot Chapel shows that the family still preferred the French to the English Service. Evelyn again gives the date:’1663, July 16. Sir George Carteret had married his daughter Carolina to Sir Thomas Scott of Scott’s Hall, Kent. The gent. is thought to be the son of Prince Rupert’. Pepys disapproved of this marriage. “she was in her hanging sleeves’, he wrote ‘but a month or two ago, and is a very young child’; and he misliked the bridegroom, who he speaks of elsewhere as ‘Mr. Scott the bastard’. Scott’s mother had been Prince Rupert’s mistress, and had lived apart from her husband for twelve years before the baby was born. Her husband had repudiated the child, ‘pleading it was unlawfully got’, said Pepys, ‘a little while before his death he did own the child and left him his estate. ‘”[quote goes on from above diary entry]“So small Carolina became the mistress of Scott’s Hall in the parish of Brabourne near Ashford. When her father and Evelyn paid her a visit a few weeks later, the latter wrote: “I accompanied Mr. Vice-Chamberlain to his lately married son-in-law. We took barge as far as Gravesend, thence to post to Rochester, whence in a coach with six horse’s to Scott’s Hall, a right noble seat uniformly built with a handsome gallery. It stands in a park well stored, with land fat and good. We were exceedingly feasted by the young knight, and in his pretty chapel heard an excellent sermon by his Chaplin.’ Unfortunately Carteret had not considered what an awful mother he was inflicting on poor Carolina. She wrote to her son, “I shall be happy to see your wife, but, as I wrote to her, not while I am under the frowns and neglect of her father and mother.’ Later, however, she realized that her son’s rich father-in law might be made useful, and for the rest of Carteret’s life he was pestered with begging letters from her.”Also to note: Carteret and Rupert {who is believed to be the boy’s real father} were enemies. Back in March 1653 Carteret, acting on the behalf of Charles (not yet King, but next in line) and Rupert entered into a ‘tug of war’ over the ownership of some guns taken by Rupert’s on a buccaneering cruise. Charles claimed ownership, Carteret, as always acted with non wavering loyalty to do what the then exiled Charles had asked and the result was a lifelong (?) enemy in Rupert. It’s not stated anywhere I’ve found as of yet, if they ever made amends or if Rupert maintained any part in his supposedly bastard child’s life, but this could mean another “awful in-law” for Carteret. (page 107). Rupert, however (per a foot note in Grammont) did provide for 2 of his bastard children by other mistresses in his will, but I'm not sure if Thomas received any inheritance from him when he died or if he was ever "officially claimed" by Rupert.

Finally, to note and Pepys will mention this (not a big spoiler, but interesting to note when we see it), Carteret is a wonderful and extremely devoted father (and by all accounts husband, too). Sam will get to know the girls more over the next year or so. He will not immediately come across the 2 older boys as they have already left the nest. The other interesting Carteret marriage (details withheld) will involve our Sam offering advice to the hopeful suitor and will be a fun filled adventure for us to look forward to.

What was "gaudy" to Pepys today leads him to have the five rebound in his default. L&M suggest they were later rebound; *Walton’s Polyglot* is found bound thus in Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

OED: One who covers the roofs of buildings with tiles, a tile-layer, also formerly, a tile-maker.[...] 1562 Act 5 Eliz. c. 4 §30 Tharte or Occupation of a.. Bricklayer. Tyler, Slater, Healyer, Tilemaker. 1663 GERBIER Counsel 51 The Tiler, who often removes ten Tiles to lay two new ones. [...]

(The "doorkeeper" sense used in Freemasonry is not attested until 1742.)

“but to young Scott, son to Madam Catharine Scott,"Prince Rupert was supposed to have intrigued with Mrs. Scott, and was probably the father of the child.---Diary and correspondence of Samuel Pepys, the diary deciphered by J. Smith. 1854.

‘hanging, adj. . . 1. b. hanging sleeve: a loose open sleeve hanging down from the arm; formerly worn by children and young persons . . 1659 J. Gauden Ἱερα Δακρυα 580 The Popes..being then in their bibs and hanging-sleeves. . . 1741 S. Richardson Pamela IV. xlix. 301 When I was a Girl, or, when I was in Hanging-sleeves . . '(OED)